Lad v Lad

[2019] NZHC 3239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-002833

[2019] NZHC 3239

BETWEEN

SHASHI KANT LAD

Plaintiff

AND

HEMANT KUMAR LAD

Defendant

Hearing:	6 August 2019
Appearances:	A Kashyap and S Yong for the Plaintiff P Rice for the Defendant
Judgment:	10 December 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SARGISSON

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 December 2019 at 2.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Newton Law, Auckland P Rice, Auckland

LAD v LAD [2019] NZHC 3239 [10 December 2019]

[1]        On 14 October 2019 I issued judgment on the first defendant’s application for orders for security for costs and further particulars of the plaintiff’s claim. I declined to grant the application for security but I ordered (with the plaintiff’s agreement) that the plaintiff provide the further particulars sought.

[2]The issue of costs on the application remains for determination.

[3]        Counsel for the first defendant has filed a memorandum as to costs and for the plaintiff, his counsel has filed a memorandum in response.

[4]        In my assessment the first defendant is the successful party in an overall sense, but I accept counsel for the defendant’s submission to the extent that I agree that there should be some modest allowance for the success that the first defendant has enjoyed in securing the plaintiff’s agreement to give further particulars. I do not accept the submission that the first defendant is entitled to an indemnity from the Trust at this point for his costs’ liability or the alternative submission that costs should be reserved. I am satisfied the fair course is for the first defendant to pay costs now so that the plaintiff receives some immediate compensation for the costs he has incurred; such an order does not preclude the first defendant from seeking indemnity when the question of overall costs is dealt with, at the end of trial. Whether or not an indemnity is allowed will be a matter for the trial judge.

[5]There is no dispute that such costs as are awarded should be on a 2B basis.

[6]        I make an order for costs and disbursements in favour of the plaintiff on a   2B basis, but with the proviso that there will be a 35% reduction in the overall amount claimed by the plaintiff, pursuant to High Court Rule 14(7)(g). Along with the reduction, the amount of the award is $3,722.22. It is to be paid within 10 working days.

Associate Judge Sargisson